Features » October 30, 2017

The Left Needs To Confront Its Own Sexual Assault Problem

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

A woman speaking up about sexual violence on the Left does so because of her commitment to our work, not in spite of it.

The New York Times investigation into Harvey Weinstein has had ripple effects far beyond Hollywood. High-profile figures in the music industry, media and the labor movement have had sexual harassment or assault allegations against them go public, and we can only imagine how many more are being made outside the media spotlight.

On the Left, we aspire to hold ourselves to higher standards than most communities when it comes to sexual violence, and rightly so. Driven by a desire to build a world free of the oppression and exploitation that drives sexual violence, leftists should take the subject very seriously, particularly when it happens in our movements. On the surface, most leftists agree.

But the Left has never been immune to sexism and sexual violence from its leaders—from 1964, when the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s Stokely Carmicheal said the only position for women in the Black Power movement was “prone,” to 2013, when members left the U.K.’s Socialist Workers Party after it refused to adequately investigate rape allegations against a leading member, to today, when ongoing revelations about alleged sexual misconduct by former SEIU vice president Scott Courtney, a key architect of the union’s Fight for $15 campaign, have resulted in Courtney’s resignation along with the termination of at least one other union staff member. In each of these cases, toleration of this behavior weakened the organization.

I am not alone in having experienced the immense pressure brought to bear on anyone speaking out about sexual violence in an organizing space. At worst, you become subject to reminders of the damage you can do to the movement by accusing a prominent man (it’s not always a man, but it usually is) of sexual violence. “The Right will use this information against us,” you might be reminded, or, “We can’t win without him”—the implication being that if you insist on bringing up a leader’s misconduct, “we” can’t win with you.

Whether you yourself were abused or you are speaking up on someone else’s behalf, you open yourself up to criticisms that you are distracting from the real work of the movement. Rather than speaking about your intended focus—be it labor organizing, coalition building, communications strategies or direct action planning—you are forced into the position of feeling hysterical, becoming a caricature: the woman who is decrying sexism or misogyny in the movement. Almost instantly, you feel your comrades change how they see you: Once an organizer first and foremost, you’re now a woman before all else. It’s jarring. Moments prior you were a respected leader, and suddenly you are suspect.

But when women (it’s not always women, but it usually is) raise the issue of sexual violence on the Left, we do so out of our commitment to building the strongest and most sustainable possible movement. An insistence on taking sexual violence seriously is not a distraction—it is central.

I cannot tell you how many campaigns I have seen endangered by the revelation that a man who voluntarily took on a leadership position had a history of sexual violence or misconduct: a local anti-police brutality movement quietly hoping our leader’s unconscionable history with women never goes public, because it’d be a gift to the Right; a campaign against union-busting on campus led by a man facing multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, persistently failing to have any women show up in meeting after meeting, suffering from a deficit of volunteer labor and ultimately failing to win. This is why we need clear, immediate action against sexual misconduct: It’s how we retain critical and independent leaders, especially women and queer people. To insist upon zero tolerance for abusers ensures our movements are built and led by people who can be trusted.

We cannot afford to hand-wave away concerns about sexual violence or sexism on the Left. These afflictions are no worse in our movements than on any other part of the political spectrum, but to pretend we are immune to the influences of a deeply sexist and violent world would be delusional. It’s true that now, in a moment when the Left has noticeable momentum, there are more hostile forces than ever seeking to weaponize our imperfections in hopes of tarring our political projects as illegitimate. But when these criticisms come from within our communities, we should respond to them with the seriousness they deserve.

A woman speaking up about sexual violence on the Left does so because of her commitment to our work, not in spite of it. She does so because it’s the only way to stamp out behaviors that could do us unimaginable damage in the short and long term. This conversation is not a distraction from our project, and it is not a “women’s issue”; fighting sexual violence within our movements is central to building a Left that can win.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Sorry Doug. Hardly anyone is listening to your highly pertinent argument. They're too caught up in the excitement. Not many comments on this interesting topic, I see. Embarrassment is not a familiar emotion for the often self-righteous Left and many don't know how to deal with it.

Posted by srh1965 on 2017-12-10 07:08:55

How do you figure? The allegations about Weinstein go back decades, and articles about him first started appearing in 2015. Revelations about Cosby's alleged serial rapes hit the fan during Obama's presidency. Your red vs blue argument doesn't hold water.

And yes, progressives should not imagine their organizations or individuals are “immune to the influences of a deeply sexist and violent world.”

And yes, progressives who call attention to any sexist practice must be supported, not intimidated or ridiculed - where sexist practices can range from who sets up/cleans up at meetings, to male/female access to positions of power, to respectful consideration of male/female input…all the way to typically gender-specific, outright crimes of sexual harassment and rape.

Second, this article has made me reflect on my progressive organization - a progressive caucus of a teacher’s union. A lot of members are women, a number gay - both occupying or having occupied central positions of power - and, perhaps for that reason, as well as my observations at our meetings, I do not believe that Ms. Press’s experience of being marginalized or shut up would be likely to happen in our organization. Of course, though I have a role - one editor of our newsletter - I am not on an ‘inside track’ and so, arguably, I am not in a position to fully gauge the question. It just doesn’t seem to be our culture…

In any event, citing my experience is not to gainsay the existence of sexism or the shutting up of ‘whistleblowers’ in other progressive org’s - and it sucks and is an outrage, but also demoralizing, that Ms. Press has experienced this. I hope that progressives who read this article recognize, respect, and empathize with the fact that Ms. Press's article is not just an intellectual analysis of a problem, but a personal grievance writ large - a personal grievance with social roots. She must be praised not simply for pointing out a problem, but for being publicly vulnerable - as with the women's groups of the 1960s and '70s - going public with feelings of estrangement, and embarrassment or humiliation or 'weirdness' for saying something important, but taboo in the culture of a particular organization.

Third, having said the above, I consider Ms. Press’s important article to be more a conversation starter than definitive in any way - and I have a number of problems with how it formulates the problem.

To focus on just one criticism, despite brief mention of sexist practices, the article is ahistorical - in the late 1960s, post-World War Two U.S. feminism emerged strongly in reaction not just to sexism in the greater society, but sexism in the anti-war movement resisting the Vietnam War.

A fuller consideration of the problem would in some way make reference to this and have something to say about whether - as Ms. Press’s account leads one to infer - progressive organizations are as sexist as they were then, or whether fifty years of post 1960s feminism has changed…anything.

I don’t say that Ms. Press is singly responsible for addressing or answering this question - but I do fault her interpretive ‘frame’ for referring to progressive sexism, but making no mention of feminist resistance.

Posted by abramawicz on 2017-11-11 13:10:59

The upside as alleged victims of abuse come forward: Attention to sexual abuse may lead to improvements and changes in behavior.The downside of hot-and-heavy media attention: Over-zealous people in authority may set out to "get tough" on harassment and abandon ethics and fundamental fairness (which should be fully available to all parties in these disputes) and step over the line by conducting biased procedures, witch hunts and star chamber hearings in order to set examples and prove how serious they are about ending human activity that is not to be tolerated. In the present tsunami of allegations, it is not of interest to investigative journalists that FALSE CHARGES sometimes happen -- resulting in victims who can lose reputations, employment, finances. I have recently finished a book manuscript blowing the whistle on abusiveadministrative policies and procedures. Abuses are not limited to one side of the political spectrum,and it seems reasonable to note that false charges of sexual harassment can themselves become a form of sexual harassment. Is it logical to believe that sexual misconduct can be eliminated when history, laws and regulations against everything from murder and theft to drunk driving and speeding have not eliminatedthose behaviors?Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana

Posted by DougGiebel on 2017-11-10 13:10:26

I hope you all realize that Weinstein, et al, would still be producing movies and assaulting actresses if Hillary had been elected. With hubby Bill in the spotlight again, not to mention Hillary herself smearing the women he assaulted, nobody would dare bring up issues like sexual assault until a Republican like Trump was elected.

But I doubt that any of those aggrieved actresses are going to thank Trump for being able to finally speak out.

Posted by MrJimm on 2017-11-01 19:57:10

Sounds like progressives are starting to understand what it's like to have to follow your own rules...